Misdee

I think vintage instruments can get better with age to the extent that over time owners might have gotten their faults addressed by a luthier. I've played countless vintage Fenders over the years, some were enjoyable, some less so, but they didn't sound other-worldly compared to a nice new one. The sound just isn't that different. It's more the feel and what that gives you. I don't think there's much milage in their electronics maturing like wine and improving. The pickups do tend to get more microphonic over the years and I suppose that will change the tone a bit.

I don't think Rush having a female drummer is any kind of a token gesture or social statement. It is, however, a way of circumventing comparisons with Neil Peart. I've been watching Anika Niles a bit on YT. She's obviously a very technical player and will easily be able to play those songs. It's more Geddy and Alex I'm worried about! She's the right kind of drummer for Rush. The wrong kind of drummer would have been a groove-based player, like most famous session drummers.

What I indignant reverse misogyny baloney is that ? I think what you mean is that you don't feel the drummers gender is relevant, and feelings are not facts. You have no more evidence that gender isn't relevant than I have that it is. If your so sure it isn't relevant tell us why. I'm genuinely interested to hear why you feel the need to forbid discussion on the subject.

I don't like late-era Rush with Neil Peart on drums. I wouldn't like that music with a new drummer, either. That's the point. I would say Grace Under Pressure was the last decent Rush album. After that they made albums with a few good tracks on, at best, then after Test For Echo they made albums with no good tracks on.

I know, but nothing sounds like a Wal. A proper Alembic would be an acceptable substitute, I suppose. That's a whole other can of worms.

I think it's very significant that they've chosen a female drummer. Any male drummer is going to be directly compared to Niel Peart, probably not favourably no matter how well he plays. Choosing a woman for that role opens any such criticism to claims of misogyny. I don't doubt there has already been a narrative created that detracts from that motive, but it's unlikely to be a complete coincidence. I have to be honest and say that, although I'll be interested in how this all turns out, I wasn't that keen on the later era of Rush with Neil Peart, let alone a stand-in. I wouldn't have turned out to see Rush nowadays, regardless. It's not just Rush, I find all these stadium-filling rock legends shows to be a hollow shell of whatever they are trying to recreate. The Rolling Stones are still touring, but if you go to the show you still haven't really seen the Rolling Stones. That ship sailed decades ago. Your just seeing a few guys who were there at the time, probably from a great distance. It's not so much a celebration of the music as a chance to marvel at seeing them in the flesh for a bit while they are still alive. The same with The Who, et al. I expect this will be a greatest hits kind of show, fair enough I hope everyone enjoys it,bbut I saw Rush play live plenty of times in their heyday. They were a special band in those days, and that's how and when I like to remember them. I don't need any more momentos.

I have to take issue with the idea that Neil Peart could be bettered as a drummer in the sense that it's not a case of good, better, best. There are better drummers than John Bonham, but none of them could have improved Led Zeppelin. There are and always were much better trumpeters than Miles Davis, but he was Miles Davis. Niel Peart had a style and a delivery that made him iconic. It's not just what he played, it's what he represented at a particular time. Put a "better" drummer in Rush and their music would be diminished, not enhanced. I thought most of his lyrics were bloody awful, though. I am sure this semi-reunion will be rapturously received but I think it's a bit of a tragic to be yearning so strongly for the past. I never imagined Rush would go this route. I suppose Geddy must be bored of polishing his basses. I just hope the intervening years haven't diminished Geddy and Alex's prowess. I see so many artists who go on performing after time has robbed them of what once came so effortlessly. It's painful to watch.

Waller, but without the "ler" at the end. From Ian Waller, co-founder of the company.

If people are willing to pay £9 grand for a vintage Wal then good luck to them, and well done to whoever is managing to sell them at that price. I would love to buy a Wal but I don't want an old one and all the associated problems for that kind of money. I'd much rather have a new one made by Paul Herman, but last I heard it was a six year wait. When you get to a certain age six years is a maybe rather than a when. I'll just have to make do with something else.

The Who were never the same again, and they have staggered on making increasingly worthless music into the present. And as for the The Foo Fighters, Taylor Hawkins seemed like a lovely chap and a decent drummer, but he wasn't comparable to Neil Peart or indeed Keith Moon in terms of his sonic imprint on the sound of the band. Led Zeppelin packed it in after John Bonham died. Good decision. The reunions with Jason Bonham were a mistake, and Jason's a fantastic drummer in his own right uniquely placed to substitute for his truly iconic dad. It's nothing to do with playing ability or even music. It's about accepting that something very special is over and cannot be recreated. Everything in life is a time and a place. The time and place that Rush belonged to is gone now, nothing will ever bring it back. That's nothing to be sad about, though. It's what makes what they had so wonderful.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but I wish they wouldn't do it. If Geddy and Alex want to get out there playing music together again, fantastic. Get this drummer and keyboard player in and start a new band. Trust me, people would turn out to see them in droves. They've got nothing to prove, their legend is intact. They should leave it that way.

1988 waste fledgling days of five string basses. More often than not bass builders were offering designs that were essentially 4 string models with a fifth string added, not necessarily likely to garner good results when it comes to a successful and satisfactory five string design. This Alembic may well have fallen in that category. If you've got that kind of cash to spend you can do much better. Feel free to run your next prospective purchase by us first. As someone once wisely said, not many great ideas were come up with by a committee, but a lot of bad ideas were killed off by one.

I can actually remember when these colours were on the newest USA Fenders in my local music shop. I can vividly recollect a bright yellow Jazz Bass. That was just around the time I was shopping for my first proper bass. I think they were Fenders attempt to stay relevant to the "new wave" of that time. General consensus at the time was that they looked bloody awful, but nowadays they look pretty good to me! Just shows you how times and tastes can change.

A good bass is a good bass, expensive or not so expensive. It's just that if a brand loses it's aspirational dimension then it has no direction. It becomes like trying to sell replica kits for a mid-table Sunday League football team. Why would people want them? G&L is such a loss to the market because they have unique features and sounds that no one else has to offer. The L1000 and L2000 are inimitable, nothing else sounds like them.

For me, for G&L to continue as a brand they have to keep making premium quality guitars and basses in the USA. I know the Tribute range has its fans, but without the USA range and it's heritage they have nothing to be a tribute to. What I want is top quality American-made instruments. It's so depressing when prestige brands become a hollowed-out shell of themselves churning out budget fare which bears little or no relation to what garnered their reputation in the first place except the name . It's happened too many times already. If G&L go the same way then it's another brand might as well have gone completely as far as I'm concerned.L

I wouldn't put any value whatsoever in the bass being signed by "serious legends." If you are seriously interested in this bass I would do a bit (a lot) of due-diligence on Alembic Persuader basses, specifically the five string version. I remember the 4 string Persuader was a 32 inch scale, and that scale might not work so well on a five. Check the specs regarding that and also the weight of the bass. A five string Alembic could well be pretty heavy. Alembics basses are notoriously idiosyncratic, and though they sound wonderful are not always particularly user-friendly so if you've got that kind of money to spend proceed carefully. There's a lot of nice basses out there for that kind of cash.

There's a big difference between the two hypotheses "How many basses is too many ?" and "How many basses do you need?" How many basses is too many depends on your personal circumstances. If you're John Entwistle or Geddy Lee then in excess of 250 basses is perfectly okay. If you're living in a bedsit and struggling to make ends meet you can probably manage with less than that. How many basses you need depends on your musical circumstances and is related to the question "Which bass do I need?" In other words, you might need to be judicious in your choice of basses, considering your needs and preferences and bearing in mind the limits on how many you can have at one time. As for myself, I can be perfectly happy playing just one bass, probably a Jazz Bass, if I've got a P Bass as well then there's not much else I really need or want on a regular basis. Add a fretless and a decent five string and I can amuse myself for any foreseeable future. Any additions beyond those are really just icing on the cake. Anything more than that and you're into having a "collection", and a collection is more often than not, an entity in itself that can become burdensome.

It's not so much the active basses you mention (I've recently bought a couple of German-made Sadowsky Will Lee basses and they are superb instruments) as the passive super-Fenders (or so they would have you believe) that are the subject of my ire. Don't get me wrong, a well-made passive boutique FSO can be a very worthwhile purchase, I have one or two of my own. However, when a certain amount of magical realism is included in the retail price I am more than sceptical, let me put it to you that way.

You're not wrong Russ, but I don't think buying a bass is actually a rational transaction for most people. Particularly with expensive and esoteric basses, there's a certain amount of romance involved. It's significant that a lot of people have mentioned how G&L's major perceived shortcoming was a lack glamour and excitement, leaving them with a worthy but dull image in the minds of too many consumers.

Nick Beggs just paid £15000 for his old Wal Pro bass. I could have bought that bass from a chap in Norfolk in 1995 for about £475 if I remember correctly. I passed because I couldn't be arsed going all the way to Cromer. Thirty years ago Wal would do you a new bass for about £1100-£1200 if you went to the workshop with cash. You could get a decent used MK1 Custom for about £600, maybe a bit less if you were lucky. A new Status Series 1 or Series 2 cost a few hundred quid more than a new Wal. At that time Wal and Jaydee were considered a bit old-hat compared to newer Warwicks ect.

I use the resale value as a metric to judge how much money I could get back. If you ever want or need to sell a bass, they worth what you can get for them and what you get for them may well dictate what you can get to replace them. I remember well when Wal basses were less valuable than today, but then again now they are grotesquely overvalued. They, and Status and JD, never super cheap in relation to other comparable basses, just relatively less overpriced than now. Plenty of those basses you are mention are very attractive, no question, but I just can't see me handing over cash for most of them.

It's an endemic problem when you have a nice selection of gear. Choose one as your main bass, get to know it well. Look at the other ones while you are practising on that one and count your blessings.

Oh, there's no shortage of bass builders. The acid test for their relative popularity and desirability though, is how easy it is to sell a used bass to the general public. A few of the basses you mention have conspicuously poor resale value, if you can find a buyer. More celebrated marques will trounce their worthy but less high-profile counterparts. Pay six grand for a new fancy custom Overwater or ACG and pay six grand for a basic standard model Fodera, put them both on Basschat and see how much of your outlay you can get back and how quickly.

Well, I might be getting old in years but I still understand how the world works, for young people as much as myself. I suppose the critical difference is how much credibility and importance the individual places on whatever respective media. You see Russ, I would beg to differ that most of the manufacturers you mention are adequate replacements for those that are effectively gone now. Dingwall would be the exception. Shuker, Sei, Overwater and GB all build fine basses but I wouldn't give them house room. They just have never appealed to me. None of them can hold a candle to a Wal, or Status or Jaydee for that matter, in terms of being what I want. I'm sure plenty of other folks feel the same. It's naive to think that what most people want when they are buying a bass is merely an adequate (or even superb) instrument. More than anything they are buying an idea combined with association, and the feelings that combination gives them. Very few bass builders appeal to me nowadays. It's not just a generational thing or me hankering for my youth, basses just aren't as interesting or diverse as they once were, fanned frets ect. not withstanding.

For me, the whole boutique passive Fender but not made by Fender fetish is getting a bit out of hand. Thousands of dollars for a bass sounds like...a Fender but I suppose with a bit of a story to it and some snake oil thrown in, if that's what you're really after. That's fair enough, let the buyer beware, but what I can't take is the guys who think they would be doing me a favour selling me one of their basses for mere money in return. Trust me, there are some out there. At least G&L were honest about what they were offering and Leo's heritage. They actually did have some worthwhile innovations on the Fender designs and they could and should have been a lot more successful with them.